In the wake of Romney's loss, there has been much gnashing of teeth from Republicans about where things went wrong. I've seen and heard many different reasons for why Obama won and why Romney lost, and I'm sure there are 100 different things you could point to that legitimately affected the race. In spite of this complexity, I feel that you can boil all of the reasons down to one main cause. That main cause is similar to the "taker" argument presented by Romney, et al, but with a key difference.
Before explaining that difference, I wanted to share a couple of good examples of what Republicans (the ones doing the talking, at least) are expressing as the "taker" argument. First, from here:
"Then there is the fact that relatively few Americans actually pay for the government they consume. To a greater extent than any other developed nation, we rely on upper-income people to finance our federal government. When that is combined with the fact that around 40% of our federal spending isn’t paid for at all–it is borrowed–it is small wonder that many self-interested voters are happy to vote themselves more government. Mitt Romney proclaimed that Barack Obama was the candidate of “free stuff,” and voters took him at his word.
Next, from Romney himself:
"With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008."
The basic point of these arguments is that Obama promised to give these people what they want, and they responded by voting for him. Taken out of context, that makes sense. I would even go as far as to say, "duh." But I don't think it's actually that simple.
In the wake of Romney's 47% snafu, many were quick to point out that Republican leaning states tend to recieve more welfare than Democrat leaning states. This would seem to at least superficially refute the premise that people vote for their own, direct interests. Rather, I think that people are able to look beyond their own plight, and vote for the candidate that they perceive will be able to help those that need help the most. Indeed, that is a big reason why I personally voted for Obama. I think that instead of blaming any faults in the Republican platform, the basic failure to understand why people vote for the candidates that they do is the main reason the Republicans suffered defeat. The self-sufficiency ethos of the right may indeed be better for the needy (I'm not debating that here), but they just didn't succeed at selling it as something that would actually help those in need.
When viewed through this lens, it makes abundant sense that Obama won. During his first term, he seemed to focus on helping those that were less fortunate. Women are paid less than men, so he passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Many of the poor can't afford adequate healthcare, so he passed the Affordable Care Act. Gays have less rights than straights, so he repealed DADT and voiced his support for same-sex marriage. If your primary concern in the election was the plight of those people, then the only party that made a strong case for helping all of those people was the Democrats.
I want to make clear that this argument doesn't mean Democrats are selfless and Republicans only think about themselves. I don't really think there are such fundamental differences between the two sides at all. Rather, when it comes to what voters want, the Democrats have kept the bigger picture in mind, while the Republicans have forgotten the forest for the trees. If they want to be competitive in 2016, part of the key will be doing a better job with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment